Another Word about my Buddy Rusty
June 29, 2008
Regular readers of this blog will remember that I lost one of my dearest friends in this life back in February, when my friend Rusty Snyder passed away suddenly. On Friday, on the way back from conference, Karen and I stopped in Nashville and had lunch with Mike, Rusty’s “little brother” (he’s like 43 now). Mike told me that, since no autopsy had been performed on Rusty, no one was certain what he had died of. The assumption that I, and many others, made was that Rusty had suffered a heart attack; his family has a history of heart-related issues. That said, he had taken meticulous care of himself, far better than I take of myself!
But Rusty had been outdoors, cutting down some “crippled” limbs from a tree that had sustained wind damage (as well as cleaning up fallen limbs from the ground). A fairly large limb had fallen on him, knocking him to the ground and, apparently, knocking him out very briefly. He’d gotten up, shaken it off, and continued working. Then, some minutes later, he’d complained of pain and tightness, as well as some other symptoms. His wife, Sherry, had taken him to the doctor, where he collapsed and never regained consciousness.
Mike, interested in knowing the truth (and a little concerned as well, of course, about congenital issues), has done a little studying and come to the conclusion that it wasn’t a heart attack that had claimed his brother’s life at all, but rather a condition where a sudden trauma (if I understand correctly) had knocked his heart dangerously out of rhythm. According to Mike, once this happens, you have about an hour to get the heart shocked back into rhythm, or you risk death. Once shocked back into rhythm, the heart sustains no damage at all; it’s as if it had never happened.
This news, this thought, leaves me with mixed feelings. I’m happy for Mike, first of all, to think that it wasn’t a congenital heart problem. At the same time, there is this real sadness in knowing that the right medical treatment, if diagnosed and applied quickly enough, might have saved his life; it is a serious but eminently-treatable condition. Overall, I’m mainly sad.
Because it still hurts…
The EFCA Resolution I Offered
June 29, 2008
I referenced, in a blog post Thursday, a resolution that I had offered at the end of our vote on the Statement of Faith. But since I’m working with a new laptop, I didn’t actually have a copy of the resolution–until my buddy Matt posted the text of the resolution.
Whereas the Evangelical Free Church of America has now come to the end of a long and rigorous process of re-examining and strengthening itself theologically, and
Whereas that process has consumed countless hours of tireless effort, and whereas our leadership has thoughtfully kept our movement abreast of all proposed changes, allowed all voices to be heard, amended and clarified the various parts of the proposed statement to reflect concerns voiced by the EFCA constituency, and worked hard to achieve a statement that accomplishes broad consensus, and
Whereas throughout the process, those within the leadership of the EFCA have demonstrated consistent devotion to our Lord, integrity of godly character, and unwavering commitment to our movement, and
Whereas implementing change always brings challenges, and whereas Satan always seeks opportunity to divide God’s people, subvert God’s mission, and harm God’s kingdom,
Be it therefore resolved:
That we, the 2008 National Leadership Conference, express our sincere appreciation for the dedicated efforts of all of those individuals who have labored so diligently in preparing this Statement of Faith revision;
That we reaffirm our support for the leadership of our movement;
That we determine to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, as we are called to do in Scripture; and
That we humbly call upon God to use our revised Statement of Faith for His glory.
Candidly, it probably was a bit anticlimactic; I suppose that I had composed it considering the possibility that there might have surfaced some real contention over the vote, contention which blessedly did not materialize. The resolution was applauded and “amened” when it came time for the vote; the moderator (appropriately!) did not see fit to call upon anyone for a “nay” vote (perhaps sparing a disgruntled delegate or three the ignominy of embarrassing themselves?).
Reserve a Spot in Heaven!
June 29, 2008
Uh, no.
Thanks, I’m pretty sure God’s made a real way through Jesus. Thanks, but no thanks.
Live-Blogging the EFCA National Conference – Installment 5
June 26, 2008
UPDATE: 11:39 AM - By a vote of 630 to (I think) 105, the proposed revised Statement of Faith became the Statement of Faith. Blessed be the name of the Lord. I then offered a resolution, unanimously (I hope!) adopted, calling us to unity, recognizing the efforts and dedication of our leadership, etc.
UPDATE: 10:51 AM – We’re now in the midst of debating the actual proposed revision itself. There have been some folks who’ve spoken on both sides of the issue. My buddy Matt thinks the revised SOF will pass, but I don’t know that he’s betting the house on it…
UPDATE: 10:06 AM – An amendment is offered regarding the inclusion of a statement regarding congregational church government. It is voted down as well.
UPDATE: 10:02 AM – The amendment failed by a significant margin. I voted against the amendment. I believe that the day will come–and I hope that it is soon–when the plank is removed. But Ernie Manges is right: now is not the time.
UPDATE: 9:50 AM - Missionary Ernie Manges, a supporter of the removal of the premil plank, spoke against the amendment, arguing that for the sake of unity, this is not the time, and this is not the place. Now, my buddy Jack Brooks, lacing his comments with his wonderful wit, is speaking against the amendment as well. Jack’s a guy who changed his mind on the whole thing, originally against removing premillennialism, then looking at things from a polity perspective, decided he wasn’t comfortable being in a position where we wouldn’t ordain some of the great British Puritans. The next speaker spoke against the amendment as well, but because he doesn’t believe it ought ever be changed. He included a needless, negative remark against our Spiritual Heritage Committee. Bad show.
UPDATE: 9:39 AM – Bobby File presented a cogent argument for the removal of the premil plank, and Bill Kynes spoke his strong agreement with the substance of it, yet urged rejection for the sake of unity. At this moment, that’s my position. I do retain an element of persuadability (if that’s a word)…
Original Post
I’ve not said much about the worship sessions, and won’t yet; they have been good, uplifting, challenging as we’ve been led by a tremendous worship team, Sarah Renner and Elements from Minneapolis. Our speakers have focused on I Peter 2, on our identity as “living stones” built up into a spiritual household. Good stuff.
We only got to two amendments yesterday, and this morning, we’ll deliberate the other two. If neither passes, we’ll vote on the revised Statement of Faith, it needing a 2/3 majority for passage. One friend, who’ll remain nameless, is planning to abstain from voting on the premil amendment. Here’s his reasoning: he is technically in favor, and pretty strongly, of the amendment, which would remove the word “premillennial” from our Statement of Faith–even though he’s premil himself. My own position is the same as to the issues. The problem is that he and I would both like to see the Revised SOF pass, and removing the premil plank might well make that more difficult (almost certainly). Would we be willing to settle for half a loaf, and then eventually bring back up the removal of the premil plank, once we have a better/stronger SOF? I sure would. But his reasoning in abstaining is this: to vote against the removal of the premil plank would be to send a message, perhaps, that he would like to see the premil plank retained, which is not his intent. To vote for the removal of the plank would be to not only push back the final vote a year, but increase the likelihood that we’ll not get a new SOF at all. And so he’s employing this strategery.
I’m not sure I like it much, though I understand his reasoning. The Board of Directors, which removed the premil plank in revisions 1 and 2, put it back in out of a concern for unity, and possibly as well out of concern that we get a refreshed Statement of Faith in place. I’m inclined to support their rationale, vote against the premil plank, take what we can get now, and deal with that plank in several years.
And Now, for some Good News about the U.S. Congress
June 26, 2008
Hey, great news about our Pelosi/Reid-led Congress, struggling as it is with approval ratings in the teens!
U.S. Congress Not as Utterly and Totally Nuts as the Spanish Legislature!
“The defense of our evolutionary comrades”. Hilarious.
Live-Blogging the EFCA National Conference – Installment 4
June 25, 2008
UPDATE – 5:02 PM – The first amendment failed on a close vote, and now a second amendment, relative to “Lordship Salvation”, has been offered. If the revision had read as the proposed amendment does, I could easily have supported it. That said, I think I’m voting against the amendment, as I did the first. But that said, both amendments were made and seconded by men from Faith EFC in Manitowoc, Wisconsin, and I have enormous respect for the scholarship and concern for doctrinal orthodoxy evidenced by the proposal of these amendments. I daresay that if every EFC had leaders as doctrinally-savvy as the church there, we’d be a stronger movement…
UPDATE – 4:04 PM – The first proposed amendment to the revision deals with some wording regarding the ordinances. I’m willing to say that it’s more than semantic, but I’m not sure how much more…
UPDATE – 3:51 PM – After all sorts of votes and speeches and prayer (all good, of course), we’re now at the time when we’ll be considering the 4 amendments. President Bill Hamel did a nice job of setting the tone for the session, as has Moderator Ron Aucutt. Also, a special time of prayer, led by Quentin Stieff, prepared our hearts to conduct our business in a Christlike way. My prayer as well…
Original Post
It’s Wednesday afternoon, now, 1:52 local time, and after attending a worship session last evening, a seminar this morning, and the annual luncheon for the Ministerial Association, I await what promises to be a lively session ahead. What we’re doing next will be deliberating four proposed amendments to the revision of our Statement of Faith which, if not amended, will be presented for a vote tomorrow afternoon (and will need a 2/3 majority to pass). Three of the four amendments seem relatively non-controversial, although I’m sure there’ll be somebody who’ll object to every one of them for one reason or another. Apparently, our provisional rules say that if the EFCA Board of Directors deem an amendment to not fundamentally alter the substance of the proposed revision, we can still proceed to a vote tomorrow. About those three, I’m not sure; I’m guessing at least two of the four, maybe all three, will be deemed to be not of such substance as to warrant postponing our final vote until 2009.
The fourth amendment, though, would seek to strip the word “premillennial” from the proposed revision, and would definitely postpone final vote until 2009. The EFCA has historically been committed to belief that the return of Christ will take place prior to a real, actual, 1000-year millennial reign of Christ. I hold that belief, personally (I couldn’t be ordained in the EFCA if I didn’t). That said, I would be in favor of “broadening” our movement’s Statement of Faith in order to include amillennialists to the mix. I disagree with their understanding, but I don’t consider it to be heretical by any stretch of the imagination. But there is strong sentiment on this point, and I have no idea how the vote will go. If 50% + 1 vote to strip the “premil plank” from the proposed revision of the Statement of Faith (and the first and second drafts of the proposed revision stripped the “premil plank”), then voting will be pushed ’til next year. Final approval will take a 2/3 vote (did I say that above?).
In the third revision, which is what is being presented, the “premil plank” was put back in, mainly for the sake of unity in the movement, because there is a sizable element that is opposed to removing the plank. As I sit here and hear the business conference called to order, I still am not sure how I will vote on the proposed amendment to remove the premil plank…stay tuned…
2:05 PM – Moderator Ron Aucutt calls our attention to Deuteronomy 32, the fact that we’re not just “doing business”, but that we’re proclaiming the name of the Lord; this is about God, he says, and he’s right.
Live-Blogging the EFCA National Conference – Installment 3
June 24, 2008
Dr. Chapell’s message this afternoon was on Galatians 2:20, on the life identified with the death and life of Christ. He made great points about grace, the fact that it’s not on the basis of our sanctification that we are justified, but that the entire message of the Bible is the grace of God shown us in Christ. I am dead with Christ–being crucified with Him is the antidote to spiritual pride, and also to spiritual despair. But I am also united with Christ in His life–and His life gives me power to live every day.
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
